editor_read_member

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so "No world mutation" is largely redundant. The description does add real value with return semantics: primitives come back directly while complex engine values are stringified—information unavailable anywhere else since there is no output schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then return-value behavior, then a safety note. Nothing is padded or restated unnecessarily.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what it returns (direct primitives vs. descriptive strings), which is the key gap. It omits error behavior for a missing or invalid path, the only notable remaining hole.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single path parameter is well documented in the schema (exact user-data property path, no guessed IDs). The description adds nothing about path syntax or format, which is acceptable given the schema carries the burden—baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Read an existing property from the CURRENT editor context") and narrows scope with "CURRENT" and "existing property." It implicitly separates itself from editor_read_entry (entries vs. properties) and editor_has_member (existence check), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage context is present (current editor context, existing property), and the schema warns not to guess entity IDs. However, there is no explicit routing guidance such as "use editor_has_member first if unsure the path exists," nor any statement of when this is the wrong tool versus editor_read_entry.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.